Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Abstract Background: Sarcopenia is commonly seen in the older adults and increases in incidence with age, also in Parkinson’ s Disease (PD). There may be a vicious circle between the development of PD and sarcopenia, but the relationship between the two is not clear. We aimed to investigate the incidence of sarcopenia in patients with PD and the association between non-motor symptoms (NMS) in PD. Methods: The study included 123 patients with PD and 38 age- and sex-matched healthy controls. All participants were evaluated for sarcopenia using the 2019 Asian Sarcopenia Diagnostic Criteria, and patients with PD underwent standard assessments of motor and non-motor symptoms. Multiple logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were used to examine the association between sarcopenia and NMS in PD patients.Results: The incidence of sarcopenia was significantly higher in patients with PD than in healthy controls (26.8% vs. 10.4%, p=0.035). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that poorer sleep quality (odds ratio [OR]: 1.305; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.026–1.622; p=0.030) and fatigue (OR: 1.097, 95% CI: 1.003–1.199, p=0.042) were independently associated with sarcopenia. ROC analysis indicated that the optimal cut-off value for Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) scores was 10, with 72.7% sensitivity and 74.4% specificity (area under the curve [AUC]=0.776, 95% CI: 0.692–0.846, pppConclusion: Patients with PD are more susceptible to sarcopenia than healthy older adults. Combined use of FSS and PSQI scores may be a valuable screening method for identifying sarcopenia in patients with PD.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.